This article discusses strategies for maintaining balance, clarity, and growth within a percussion ensemble throughout a marching season. Instead of defaulting to simplifying or removing difficult parts (“watering” the parts), it advocates for diagnosing the root causes of performance issues and making targeted modifications. These modifications—such as adjusting voicing, rhythms, or instrumentation—allow performers to tackle challenging material while preserving musical integrity and encouraging development. The authors emphasize that thoughtful adjustments can enhance ensemble sound, boost student morale, and achieve the desired musical and technical outcomes without unnecessary disbanding of complex parts. Overall, the approach promotes intentional problem-solving and incremental improvements to foster both technical growth and musical expression in marching percussion.

---

The experience of any battery percussion section throughout a given season is one of fluidity, where parts, stickings, dynamics, and more are constantly in a battle to find the appropriate balance of risk vs. execution. This can be complicated by multiple factors, including the voicing and volumes of the rest of the musical ensemble, the staging and physical demand, and more. In our PASIC50 clinic, we will shed light on the typical considerations we make for the Rhythm X quadline.

One constant (or, at least, near constant) occasion throughout the season is the need to “water” the parts. For those unfamiliar with the battery terminology, this usually refers to simplifying the parts to be more achievable (and therefore clearer for the listener/judge) by diluting the skill sets and/or voices — removing some of the more difficult rudiments embedded in the part itself, simplifying rhythms, or removing some voices altogether. There is an age-old adage in the battery world: The fastest way to clean the snare line is to take out the quads. While humorous (at least to non-quad drummers) and unfortunately very effective at the stated goal, we like to ask: What if there is a better way? The “old” way can achieve the desired result in most cases but usually comes at the cost of students and performers feeling disappointed and demoralized, even if the action taken is not a direct result of execution issues.

In our opinion, “watering” something should encourage growth. Instead of asking “Should this be removed?” a better question would be “Should this be modified?” With some straightforward tips, a battery section may be able to find the best of both worlds: music that students are still excited about playing, while achieving the appropriate transparency and execution required for the ensemble. 

First, an educator needs to accurately diagnose what the root cause of the issue may be, instead of just the symptom. What is the intent and why is it not coming across? For instance, check out the excerpt in Example 1.

In the original version, the balance of the battery ensemble sounds off. Even if the quads nail the rhythms and are visually at the same height, they don’t seem to fit in with what the snares, basses, and cymbals are doing. Gut reaction? Take out the quads. Our suggestion: tweak the voicing and even the rhythms.

These are the diagnoses and fixes we found through multiple iterations:

• The triplet roll from the original version wasn’t quite getting across. The real culprit was changing drums every partial during counts 6–8 of that roll. Sometimes the constant changing of frequencies can simply sound “muddy” when combined with other static voices like the snare drums, even if the rhythms are perfectly aligned. Removing or limiting the lateral motion can do wonders for clearing up the sound while allowing the performers to still participate.

Sidenote: the start of the crescendo comes with a drum change to drum 2 (in the final version). While the snares technically already increased their stick heights there, we kept those two diddles on drum 2 at three inches because the around takes care of that dynamic jump. More on that below.

• The quarter-note triplet in the tenor voice didn’t work. It remained in the bass voice, but we made the upper battery part unison. That contributed to the triplet roll “cutting” more up top instead of distracting from it.

• On the fivelet, we got rid of the big 4–3 jump with the crossover. The challenging lateral motion in combination with the original dynamics just wasn’t working out. Compensating for taking out something challenging like that, we inserted scrapes on the second fivelet. It was appropriate, felt good, and kept some lateral demand.

• Zooming out, we noticed that part of our beef with the original music was a discrepancy in dynamics with the front ensemble. The above changes were part of a coordinated effort to match dynamics front to back, enhancing the clarity of intent for this entire moment.

Example 2 shows the Final(s) Version.

This approach allows the quads to still play a part of the show they enjoy, continue to refine more skillsets, and contribute rather than distract. It’s a win-win for the entire ensemble and can keep spirits high throughout the competitive season. It allows the educator to frame things more in the vein of “getting the parts right” from a design-oriented perspective and less of a student performance issue (though that still may be the actual root cause).

For bass drums and quads, we encourage you to examine balance issues through the lens of frequency ranges. Here are a couple of our go-to balance tips: 

1. The bigger the drums, the louder they are. Volumes/heights across the various sized drums are not created equal. The opposite is true as the drums get smaller. 

2. Along with #1, to be more specific: if the snares are at the edge, the quads will likely be too loud on anything lower than drum 1. The opposite may also be true; if the snares are playing a louder dynamic, the quad voice may be lost when playing on the higher drums. 

3. Match the frequency range with the volume, especially through dynamic changes. Crescendos work well moving from higher to lower drums, decrescendos work well moving from lower to higher drums.

4. Lateral velocity matters; larger lateral motions in the quad voice are extremely difficult to control at lower volumes. Tweaking the “around patterns” in proximity to those motions can be a great way to maximize the ensemble balance while retaining a majority of the original part.

Sometimes, execution is the culprit, and the students cannot consistently perform the written part at a high enough level for success. The common remedy to this is to immediately reduce the original part: take the diddles out, take the flams out, quads play on one drum, etc. For quads specifically, we would caution against the immediate reduction of the lateral responsibility. 

Ultimately, the decision on “watering” parts comes down to the educator’s expertise and experience in relation to the season, written part, student ability, etc. Our recommendation: diagnose the issue and use the smallest version of an adjustment first. You may find that the modification of the part (as opposed to complete removal) allows you to retain the intent of the composition while greatly increasing the ceiling for the execution (and keeping your students happy!). If the minimal change nets an immediate increase in the success of the part, it’s likely worth pursuing. If not, consider continuing along the same path with smaller adjustments before scrapping the entire voice or rhythms. Changing parts is a normal process for any battery section, but in our experience this route has proven time and again to be the best of both worlds.

These strategies will be demonstrated live at our upcoming clinic at PASIC50. We will bring the Rhythm X 2025 Quadline on stage and share with you more quad knowledge, from high-level perspective thinking down to the mechanics of how to play the instrument — from basic skillsets to extremely demanding show repertoire. We hope to see you there!